Okay, folks... we've now been through the entry draft and Free Agent Frenzy (tm).

Which teams do you think are going to cause significantly more trouble for the rest of the league than they did last year?

My bets are Nashville, Vancouver (which I'm betting will regret giving DeBrusk so much term three years from now, but which got and undervalued gem in Heinen), New Jersey, Detroit and the Bruins. Pretty much in that order. Honorable mention: Utah. This isn't a measure of where they end up, but rather how much they'll improve.

What say you?

ON EDIT: we're on to another page, so here's Jackie again. Makes the thread ever so much more decorative.

I think it's a worthwhile touch to make allowances for both read/write learners and visual learners.  Thanks.   I don't know enuff to intelligently comment on the minutiae re. either sphere.   But I'm a wee bit bummed to see that les 'abs didn't make the "improved" list. 

Refresh my memory, if you don't mind, Skip... what was the big knock on DeBrusk?  [I seem to recall a few seasons ago he was portrayed as being largely responsible for the Bruins*  not doing as well as some had hoped.]

* = and possibly even beyond ... b-i-g time persona non grata.  Weren't civic celebrations being planned in anticipation of his leaving town?  

I usually don’t follow all the draft picks and moves,, I notice them the next year if they’re performing well.
hmmm…I thought DeBrusk was a force with the Bruins,, didn’t know he was criticized

RE: Jake Debrusk - Some Boston fans are sorry to see him go, but I'm not one of them. Opinions seem split about 50:50.

DeBrusk has loads of talent but he's streaky as hell. Attitudinally challenged as well. He was one of the primary instigators in getting Cassidy fired (admittedly, he had some help). Cassidy expected him to produce at a high level most of the time, not unreasonable for a coach working with talent like DeBrusk's, but DeBrusk got butthurt by that and demanded a trade; Sweeney did his best to smooth things over and gave him a 2x4mm extension, then Cassidy was fired and Monty came in.

Jake played REALLY well in the 22-23 season, including gamewinner in the Winter Classic while skating on a broken fibula suffered earlier in the game. An amazing performance. Continued to play well rest of season despite some time off to recover. This season, not so much - which is a bit odd, in that DeBrusk's history is to play well in a contract year and slack off, until he's in the first season of a new contract.

It's true that he's a more mature player now, but if he had a problem with Cassidy I'm not sure how well he's going to do with a hard@$$ like Tocchet.

Essentially, DeBrusk got the contract he was looking for in Vancouver: 7 x $5.5mm with a no-movement clause through 27-28 and then a 10-team no-trade clause after that. I don't view the $5.5mm as completely outrageous, but the term and NMC/NTC is bonkers, IMO, given his history. He'll most likely play very well during the upcoming season and then start slacking off, and my bet is that Vancouver will be trying to figure out a way to dump him after about three seasons.

So yeah, I'm not sorry to see him go.

FTR, Vancouver picked up two more Bruins: Derek Forbort, an unspectacular but competent third-pair left-shot D who does really well on the PK, and Danton Heinen. Heinen I'm definitely going to miss. He's from B.C, - Langley, in fact, so he's a homeboy for Vancouver and one must imagine he's delighted to play with his hometown club. He skated for Montgomery at Denver, and was drafted by the Bruins in 2014, moved up to the big club in 2018, then dealt to Anaheim in 2019. Played there two years, went to Pittsburgh for two years. Pittsburgh let him walk, despite okay production. Without a contract, he came to Boston in autumn 2023 on a Professional Tryout, did well, and basically hung around until they could open up cap space for him at league minimum. He played in 74 games, put up 36 points including 17 goals, and ended the season with a +16 rating. He was incredibly versatile - Monty would play him anywhere from fourth line to first depending on what was needed. And he did it all well - unflashy, never a superstar, but a rock solid and dependable depth player.

Sweeney decided not to renew him, for some reason. Vancouver scooped him up for 2 X 2.5mm - which is a bargain IMO. I would have loved to see him wear the spoked B next year - he earned it.

And for the record, DeBrusk only had four more points this past season than Heinen posted. Go figure.

Thanks Skip.

W.r.t. assessing talent, this popped up just now. From Hockey Beast > my Facebook > BHO.

I dunno how it compares with anything, but on the surface, it's kinda "interesting." 

"In the 1990 draft, the Oilers somehow managed to pick 11 players who combined to play ZERO NHL games..."

quote:

---

Originally posted by Owen

Thanks Skip.

W.r.t. assessing talent, this popped up just now. From Hockey Beast > my Facebook > BHO.

I dunno how it compares with anything, but on the surface, it's kinda "interesting." 

"In the 1990 draft, the Oilers somehow managed to pick 11 players who combined to play ZERO NHL games..."

---

Snort. The draft is such a crapshoot...

On the one hand you have a tiny handful of kids who came up through juniors who were obviously going to the show, and get there early. Players like McDavid, Bedard, and this year's model, Macklin Celebrini (who would be smart, IMO, to play another season at B.U. before going pro - the kid just turned 18!).

But that's no guarantee. Consider that Brad Marchand was drafted in the third round. Consider that there are undrafted players who play very well - look up Justin Brazeau, who broke out as a fourth-line monster in Boston this season who basically signed a procession of minor league contracts on his own before getting his shot.

Many are the players who are drafted who never make it. When you consider that most NHL teams only bring up two or three kids from the minors each season - if that many - the stat you cite really doesn't surprise.

Yep ... this site https://hockeyanswered.com/what-percentage-of-nhl-draft-picks-make-it-to-the-nhl/ says, "On average 49% of players who are drafted by an NHL team will make it to the NHL, which means that they play at least one game at the NHL level."

quote:

---

Originally posted by Owen

Yep ... this site https://hockeyanswered.com/what-percentage-of-nhl-draft-picks-make-it-to-the-nhl/ says, "On average 49% of players who are drafted by an NHL team will make it to the NHL, which means that they play at least one game at the NHL level."

---

Yup. Familiar with that site and article.

I've heard rumblings that one of the players' issues in the next CBA will be to address this very item. The NHLPA apparently wants a shorter window on how long a team can hold a player's rights after drafting them, on the grounds that most players drafted round 4 and later never get a chance to prove themselves in the minors. They'd like to be free agents so that they can shop themselves around. Can't say as I blame them.

Further to this discussion: here's a fascinating article that outlines the "trade tree" related to Gretzky's career, starting young, and how the various moves and perambulations have reverberated until at least 2022. Incredibly well researched, and it illustrates well how few players ever truly "make it."

I advise making a pot of coffee prior to reading it - you may well drain said pot, because the article is LONG. But it's well-written and a lot of fun.

Well, I slogged thru it, albeit in two sessions [break to do the breakfast dishes at "Martin Gelinas' branch"] actually "read" the first part, but did more skimming in the second part.  I'm thinking most of trades were done simply to satisfy agreements more so than with a realistic expectation that they'd bear fruit.   I acknowledge the risks/pitfalls in assessing talent/ability, and recognize that some GMs and other execs. set themselves apart, but when it comes to the bulk of the "to satisfy an agreement" trades, I'm wondering how Maggie The Monkey would have done.

But, I'm impressed that Power made the effort to sort thru the morass.... no small endeavour.  

quote:

---

Originally posted by Owen

 

But, I'm impressed that Power made the effort to sort thru the morass.... no small endeavour.  

---

Yep... when it comes to hockey nerd-dom, that's all-world right there.

Surely a comparable analysis of https://www.espn.com/espn/story/_/id/40328161/joey-chestnut-banned-nathan-famous-hot-dog-eating-contest can't be too, too far off.  

Edit: Could a merger, a la WHA > NHL or ABA > NBA be in the works?

One of the most infamous trades was the Blackhawks/Bruins swap of Esposito, Stanfield, Hodge for Pit Martin, Gilles Marotte, and some unknown.

quote:

---

Originally posted by chuckv97

One of the most infamous trades was the Blackhawks/Bruins swap of Esposito, Stanfield, Hodge for Pit Martin, Gilles Marotte, and some unknown.

---

For sure. A Hall-Of-Fame move, if ever there was one!

This popped up on Facebook:  "On This Day In 1976 Tim McCarver hits a grand salami which barely cleared the fence. Garry Maddox was on 1st base waiting to see if the ball would be caught. McCarver in his exuberance ran right past Maddox and the HR is taken away. Craziest thing we ever saw on a baseball field… ."

To save me the trouble of "looking up" the rule(s), anybody know the ramifications? .... McCarver simply out? ... and Maddux assigned (?) to stay on first?  ... or Maddux given 2nd./3rd./home?   ....RBIs [i.e. runners on 2nd. and 3rd.] or no RBIs?  ... Maddux out and McCarver given a single?  .... or???

I would guess-ingly say McCarver out, Maddox stays on first

.... and the runners on 2nd. and 3rd??   [Unless of course McC would be the third out.]   ... if not the 3rd. out, would the play be "dead" and nobody advance?   

Fwiw, I'm not familiar with "grand salami" .... I like it, and might even borrow it from time to time ... so far when I'm commenting [again to no one in particular] it's usually, "He schmucked a granny."

Ohtani just hit a long, high fly ball off the wall. The expert/analyst/?? said it was the top spin that that made it drop enough so it hit the wall rather than sailing over it.   Does the expert's "science" pass muster?   Do fly balls have top spin or back spin?   [Askin' for a friend.  ]

If’n he hit the ball a bit on its upper side it’d have top spin, I’m thinkin’. So the atmospheric drag would keep it lower,, not uber das fens.,,,, methinks. (I took biophysics and organic chem at UniGoo back in the oily’70’s,, but kinetics? ….no)

My logic/science says if he hits the ball on the upper half it would have top spin alright,  but would produce a ground ball, no?.  In order to produce any fly ball, it has to be hit on the lower half [extreme ephus pitches and out-of-this-world bat swings paths might produce something unusual, but??].  I think the expert was "babbling." 

Apparently McCarver hit a grand slam single.  https://www.nbcsportsphiladelphia.com/news/today-in-philly-sports-history-mccarvers-grand-slam-single-1976/310719/  [And now it has me wondering what the call would be had Maddox not left first...???  

And as if deciphering the babbling in beisbol isn't challenging enuff... try the guys "explaining" the intracicies of bull/saddle/bareback riding.  I realize some animals are pretty smart [in their own realm], but they seem to give the bull/horse more ability to think-and-react during the 8 seconds than I think is likely. 

Edit: And while I'm at it, a 5 second penalty is too much for most of the infractions .... IF any advantage is gained [by running over a barrel, for example], I suspect it might be a second or a fraction of a second.   A two second penalty would be sufficient/more appropriate ... says this old timer who had a pretty decent quarter-horse back when he was trying to farm.     [I guess rodeo has been granted an exemption from the "penalty should fit the crime" principle of justice... or maybe they've invoked the notwithstanding clause.  .... and  how's that for "babbling"??]

More “waddueyeknow” dept.
If’n a batter has an uppercut I’m thinking he can still loft a ball enough even if’n he hit the ball slightly above its median line , which would give it some topspin. (experts are a dime a dozen,,, just ask Pat Tabler)

As fer rodeo hijinks and penalties,, my money’s on the bull!

Re. "..... still loft a ball enough even if’n he hit the ball slightly above its median line ... ."

Say what??   

To me there are three median lines ..... parallel to the ground, the line the ball is traveling and the path of the bat [even an uppercut swing].   Regardless, I'm with Jack Mankin [the world's next-to foremost authority ??] on this one..... in this blurb  https://www.mlb.com/news/the-longest-home-run-ever he says [and more importantly, I concur ], "... it is physically impossible for a ball hit above the centerline to attain the lift angle to even come near the fence much less clear it. That is true for a bat angling downward or on an up-slope at contact."

Hercules*, Ruth, Mantle, Ohtani, or even Joey Meyer,  https://www.mlb.com/news/the-longest-home-run-ever  my doh-rey-me is on an infield roller, or possibly a blooper that on a good (?) day might reach the outfield grass.

* = played for the Kansas City A's in '59 IIRC. 

Where's all the physicists when we need 'em???

Jest a cotton pikkin minnit…. wat if’n the batter made contact dead centre/ center of the ball, but with the lower side of the bat. That would give it topspin and with a hefty Vladdy swing could send it to yonder fence/fense

Nope [IMNSHumbleO] ... if the center of the ball is below center of bat the  path of the ball will be downward.... the ball would probably disintegrate [centrifugal force?] before there could be enough top spin created to counter the basic downward force of center of bat above center of ball.  [ ... or does the negative air pressure (?) from the bat swoosh pull,or suck, the ball upward?  ]